With America’s departure from the Paris Agreement far from assured, the world is looking to Europe for leadership. Europe should take a long look at its own climate diplomacy efforts to ensure it seizes the moment. The EU should embrace an “all-of-the-above” climate strategy that includes catalyzing the emergence of a new, clean energy-based political economy, particularly in the U.S. heartland.

Despite President Donald Trump’s defiant announcement in June that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, Washington cannot pull out of the deal until 2020 at the earliest. At least until then, the United States will continue to participate in UN climate change discussions. Many activists have feared that during these talks, U.S. officials would seek to stymie or disrupt the business of further refining and advancing other countries’ climate commitments, particularly given that it remains co-chair of a critical emissions verification working group.

However, the Bonn conference saw a United States that was not anarchic. Instead, the U.S. delegation showcased a mix of both pragmatism (from career officials) and dogmatism (from political appointees) in the administration’s pursuit of perceived self-interest. Several experts—including Amos Hochstein, who served as former U.S. president Obama’s official energy envoy—to speak on the benefits of nuclear power and efficient fossil fuel use. Their remarks may not have been music to everyone’s ears, but at least there was dialogue.

Governor Brown and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg are leading a group of subnational entities that comprise over half of the American population and GDP and, if it were a country, would make up the third largest economy in the world. Separately, a grouping of fifteen U.S. states (the “U.S. Climate Alliance”), along with Canada and Mexico, have formed the North American Climate Leadership Dialogue, offering a new, quasi-supranational platform with which the EU can engage.

This blossoming of initiatives is a positive development in terms of thickening and maturing climate ambitions across the transatlantic. However, Europe should not turn its back on quieter, more conservative parts of the United States that represent the largest share of U.S. emissions and will likely serve as the political fulcrum of future elections.

Despite the polarized and sclerotic divide in Congress over climate change, something important is happening in many Republican strongholds. Nearly 30,000 megawatts of wind power are either under construction or in advanced stages of planning across the United States. Notably, around 90 percent of this wind development is centered not along the America’s liberal coasts, but in the country’s more conservative heartland: the Midwest, the Mountain West, the Great Plains, and Texas. By the end of 2018, Texas could be producing more electricity from wind than from coal—a remarkable turn for what has been the country’s largest coal consumer.

Moreover, it is no longer corporate tech giants, such as Apple or Google, that are leading the way in terms of clean energy procurement. Those signing power purchase agreements are increasingly brand names that resonate in middle America, including Anheuser-Busch, Walmart, and the Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.

What takeaways, if any, should Europe draw regarding possibilities to engage with the United States on climate issues in the Trump era?

First, President Trump’s approach to the Paris Agreement is indicative of his approach to foreign policy more broadly. It demonstrates his willingness to use foreign policy to score domestic political points among core voters and his desire to tear up the legacy of the Obama administration. It also illustrates Trump’s deep skepticism of multilateral frameworks and institutions, a common theme during the presidential campaign. And, it confirms that to the president, the U.S. national interest—narrowly defined in terms of short-term domestic economic gains—trumps other broader interests such as America’s international reputation.

Yet for all that, things are changing on the ground in the United States. This presents a big opportunity for the Europeans.

Europe should continue to speak out clearly against the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. The EU should be willing to hear the administration out on its ideas cleaner fossil fuel and nuclear energy but also demand details in order to separate salesmanship from substance. After President George W. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, worthwhile climate and advanced energy efforts were nonetheless moved forward. In this vein, Europe should hold the Trump administration accountable to its rhetoric of supporting energy innovation and pollution reduction, despite a Paris withdrawal.

At the same time, Europeans should also continue to work around the president and his administration by engaging directly with state and local authorities, particularly in “red” states. By zeroing in on the commercial aspects of climate diplomacy, Europeans can build vital U.S. allies, who can in turn put pressure on the Trump administration to move its climate policy in the right direction.

Nobody, No NATION of whatever Size: the USA and CHINA included can solve alone the CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE: since it is a Global CONCERN!
What, HELL, is TRUMP doing in thisn Matter which is there almost since Eisenhower was the US President? Trump is the PRESIDENT: He's not in the heads and minds of the Entrepreneurs and other strong CORPORATES which fund and sustain OIL Industry and Who Pollute sending in the air all the harmful Materials. How many Economies DEPEND, even LIVE on poisoning Other People's Lives mostly the POOR Peoples, Nations... and smaller firms?
All of them aren't American or Chinese: So, We can Leave President Donald TRUMP alone. He'll always have SUPPORTERS while He'll be in therir Interest.
Just an Opinion.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Alexis de Pleshcoy

November 17, 20175:23 pm

In a recent paper, “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” there is a list of serious threats to life on Earth: ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine life depletion, ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and continued human population growth.
That was 1992, and climate change is one of eight horsemen of apocalypse; they are intertwined, of course, but the main cause is human population growth on a paleoliberal economic foundation, more adequate representation that the cool sounding neoliberal.
That doesn’t mean that something shouldn’t be tried, especially thinking at the success on ozone. But as long as there is massive population growth for the foreseeable future, it will be mostly palliatives.
The fate of the Earth climate will not be decided by an aging Europe, at around 500 million people, and even in the Western world, at around one billion. It will be decided by the Rest, many billions, all thinking consumption, not conservation.
In a perfect world the UN would lead and finance an accelerated ITER, followed by a Dyson sphere. In our world the UN can’t stop the continuous state of war, the huge wealth and brainpower wasted on armaments, while ITER is just a paltry 15 billion so far.
As much as we don’t like it coal is here to stay for a long time, as well as oil. India will expand coal extraction and coal based power plants at an accelerated pace, aligned with manifold increase in energy consumption. For the West, does anybody believe that Canada will dismantle the bituminous sand endeavor and plant forests to atone for past environmental sins?
The US actually missed long time ago the opportunity to become number one in solar and wind technology, as well as everything electrical and keep the oil, gas and coal for better uses. China has shown that money can be made in solar.
The author is correct to emphasize that at state level there will be serious progress in limiting carbon emissions, but not because of European leadership.
In terms of climate change there is a far worse version: nuclear winter. The Trump administration did dismantle many policies of the previous administration. “His desire to tear up the legacy of the Obama administration” stopped at the new nuclear armaments race, as well as the expansion of ERI.
Europe’s leadership in the 20th century materialized in two devastating world wars, so hopefully everybody understands that a new war will farther devastate the climate.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.